On 5/18/2010 2:55 PM, steve harley wrote:
On 2010-05-18 09:05 , P. J. Alling wrote:
Then it's not really art, it's craft.
another problem with requiring "intent" is how does the viewer know
about the intent ...
is it always obvious? is any intent sufficient? must one meet or learn
about the artist as well as experience the art? what if we perceive
intent where there is none? what if we perceive no intent where there
is some? what about art that deliberately manipulates the perception
of intent?
Like I said, even with intent, it still may not be art. If a viewer
chooses to view craft as art that's their choice. If we don't perceive
intent, then either we failed or the artist failed. I guess I'm self
confident enough to call something crap if I think it's crap, in spite
of what others may say or think. I happen to think that a lot of what's
called art today is not just failure but con.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
